IRAQ: TWO SEPARATE, DISCRETE ISSUES FOR AMERICANS
In my humble opinion, critics and supporters of American policy tend to mix the issues of (1) Whether we should have invaded in the first place, with (2) The relative failure of U.S occupation to date (For me, that IS an established fact); and with (3) The two separate, distinct forces that oppose the American presence.
As to the first - whether we should have invaded in the first place - that is a question each of us has to decide for himself/herself. While I am a supporter myself, I recognize that there are legitimate arguments on the other side, and I do respect all PRINCIPLED opponents.
That our occupation of Iraq TO DATE has been largely a failure is to ME not subject to serious debate. I have written of this previously and will only summarize: We should at the very beginning have turned over Iraqi GOVERNMENTAL power to a single man ( whether Allawi or Chalibi, it wouldn't have mattered). Instead, we agonized needlessly. We never should have attempted to run Iraq, especially the police functions, with American soldiers who had no understanding of the language or culture. And we never should have dismissed the existing police and army organizations - against the advice of the Saudis. IN SUM, WE WERE VERY NAIVE AND INNOCENT. (One might say stupidity and hubris existed also, but IMHO not.)
Given the above, there exist only TWO OBSTACLES to achieving our goal of a relatively free, democratic Iraq:
I. THE PROBLEM OF INDIGENOUS (INTERNAL) RESISTANCE TO U.S.
PRESENCE
II. THE PRESENCE OF "OUTSIDE FIGHTERS" WHO VIEW IRAQ AS BEING
A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND A TEST OF WILLS.
OUTSIDE FIGHTERS: AL QAEDA AND PERSIA
This an issue that I wish I knew more about: Al Qaeda numbers in Iraq and their composition. Also, the Iranian/Persian influence. <We know Iran has some connection with al Sadr but we don't know the extent>(See Hezbollah Model for Iraq <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08neumann.html?ex=1095825600&en=5779a5ce44d7c227&ei=5070>)
INDIGENOUS RESISTANCE
I have already written on this thread on the issues of nationalism and the "middle-eastern inferiority complex" as it relates to American occupation.
<http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20560331>
Also, I have thrown out to this thread two QUESTIONS that I believe are relevent:
I. HOW IS IT THAT EUROPEAN POWERS WERE ABLE TO HOLD FOR TWO HUNDRED YEARS A COLONIAL EMPIRE WITH SO VERY, VERY LITTLE TROUBLE.
II. HOW IS IT THAT THE GERMANS IN WWII WERE ABLE TO OCCUPY WESTERN EUROPE WITH SO LITTLE TROUBLE AND AT SUCH A SMALL COST?
I thought it appropriate to repeat what I said about this topic some time ago on a different thread. As always, I invite comments.
Bruce
TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF EUROPEAN COLONIAL EMPIRE
You are certainly correct when you contend that an alien, foreign presence - such as ours in Iraq - will create a backlash in a proud people. But to suggest that it is not possible to cope with that backlash -especially on a temporary basis- is another example of "blindered thinking."
The British, the French and the Dutch had a template for colonial rule that on the whole "worked" for them very well in Asia, Africa AND THE MIDDLE EAST. That template involved 3 elements: (1) co-opting, protecting and giving privileges to a native elite so they have a stake in the colonial status quo; (2) using wherever possible a native constablulary; and (3) avoid at all costs intrusions into religious/cultural spheres.
After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following WWI, Britain and France quickly imposed a full-blown colonial regime on Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. (Egypt, while technically having an independent King and government, was to all intents and purposes controlled by the British from the 1880's; Saudi Arabia was likewise indirectly controlled.) They used the same template. In Iraq, as you probably know, around 1936 the Shiite clergy attempted a revolt. Using time-tested methods the British had little trouble putting it down. One thing they did do during this revolt was to elevate and give precedence to the Sunni people and leaders. 'Divide and conquer,'they say.
As you know, the European colonial empire was dissolved after WWII, in part under pressure from the USA, most especially from President Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, Allen Dulles. But it is important to note that the template never broke down from any internal "native" pressure - even Ghandi's. It broke down because no one believed any more in the philosophical underpinnings of the colonial system (the "white man's burden") and because Europeans no longer had the heart and will to impose that template. (It is off topic but it is my fixed opinion that the former colonies would have been infinitely better off if the Europeans had announced a fixed date for leaving 4 years or so hence and had then slowly began turning over more and more of the administration to the "natives"; instead, they abruptly left almost overnight.)
THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF EUROPE IN WWII
In WORLD WAR ONE, the Germans used a heavy-handed, brutal approach in their invasion and occupation of Belgium. Not only was it counter-productive in that it antagonized the rest of the world, but it stimulated the Belgians to a spirited resistance that never was broken.
Institutionally, the Germans officer corps learned many valuable lessons from their defeat -always easier when you lose - among them lessons on occupation of a defeated enemy. Among those lessons: co-opt the aristocracy and the elite; leave in place the entire local police and administration; and severely control one's own troops with respect to native women and property.
In Western Europe(Norway, Holland, Belgium, France), where the German Army always ran the occupation, this "humanistic" approach worked amazingly well. It wasn't until late 1943 in Czechoslovakia (after Heydrich's assasination) and 1944 (after the Normandy invasion) that the Germans began to resort to brutal tactics like arbitrary selection of hostages to shoot. Read John Keegan's "History of WWII". In his chapter on partisans, he concludes generally that, the myth notwithstanding, the partisans never were a headache for the Germans until front lines grew close. Except for one first class division used in 1943-44 in Yugoslavia, occupation was the task of 3rd class divisions and 40-50 year old men.
The Eastern Front (Poland,Ukraine and Russia) is an entirely different story: occupation from the start was delegated to Gaulatiers/Nazi henchmen as personal fiefs and brutality and an attitude of racial superiority were the order of the day. |
